Posts by Brickley Paiste
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Just reading through the Law Commission report. It looksl like it is trying to be all things to all people, but most of all not spook the liquor industry.
The problem with this report is that it sees money being made from the sale of alcohol as a good thing which unfortunately has some bad consequences. I think that is getting it backwards.
Read this.
Now look at this.
I'd say alcohol fits in s3A(a), wouldn't you?
-
although it's true that fresh fruit and vegetables don't fit the format.
The only thing that fits the format is corporate food interests that benefit from people not knowing how to cook or seeing it as too time consuming or difficult. It isn't either.
A good dahl that I can pop in the microwave for lunch suits me well.
Bro, dahl takes 10 minutes to cook from scratch. Twenty at the most. Microwave dahl? Does that really exist? That's worse than microwave porridge.
The new Furikake kelp seasonings by Pacific Harvest are very nice.
Are you on the payroll? I bet you can make those sauces with soy, ginger, oil and vingear and some herbs for half the price in as much time as it takes to open the bottle.
-
Best new convenience product? Taste of India's new range of microwaveable punnets, which includes some very tasty vegetarian curries as well as beef, lamb and chicken options. Instant rice sachets still suck, though.
This is why the Food Show blows. Most of the stuff being sold isn't food however loosely one defines it.
-
I don't think we should repeat the mistakes of the Anglo-Canadians and the English and allow excessive immigration to wrest control of our destiny from ourselves.
See, that's really daft. Whatever few Anglo-Canadians feel this way are now forced to hide under their beds and wait for death. The horse has bolted, Tom. Wresting control? Where do you get this stuff?
For example, i think it is prudent to discuss how much - if any - Muslim migration we want here BEFORE we have a huge Muslim minority, not after. We need to have a national discussion about what values and assumptions we want to shape out immigration policy. And just because some people might find that debate uncomfortable or distateful doesn't mean we don't need to have it.
And yet, and yet. I have to agree with that sentiment. I have to accept that we have certain values and that immigration is a political issue subject to national policy. And a lot of Muslims I talk to, usually in cabs, tell me I'm going to hell because I don't believe in Allah and that NZ is pathetic because you can't hit women whenever you want.
Back when we didn't let in many brown folks, there was quite a degree of prejudice against Dutch immigrants. It was felt that they worked too hard.
How does this differ from today? The only difference is that the immigrants don't assimilate like mofos.
That MP from Rodney would have had to flee the country in Canada after making jokes about fruit pickers during an election. The current PM didn't even growl him let alone cut him loose. That would have been hanging offence #1 short of having kiddie porn or eating one's young.
Funny, no one touched this comment. I'm telling you, that idiot would have been cut loose like a rotting limb. Remember how Dubya fucked over Trent Lott? Bye bye Trent. You carry Mississippi? Fuck you. You don't get to say that segregation was a good thing and be Senate Majority leader. Now that what's his name in Rodney is a married man, I'm sure his racist invective will calm itself down. Still, many of our political leaders, which the Speaker most certain is, are hayseed embarrassments.
-
(wealthy? Really?)
Do you know what the median income is in this country? By the sound of it, no, you don't.
which I think is where you're angling
I'll remember that the next time I cut a check to the Labour Party or pay my sub.
I think you're quite wrong. Brasch and Fairburn et al did, and were shaped by, their OE in the 1930s. Before that, Mansfield left and didn't come back back, but Maori chiefs were doing their OE to Britain 150 years ago.
I suspect the boomers were the first generation for whom travel became a general rite of passage (Tom Scott is said to have coined the term "OE" in the early 70s), but that's not exactly "very recently".
I think your comment proves mine. Kiwis didn't start to travel until very recently. We float in the middle of nowhere with no point of comparison upon which to grow. We are a reflection of oursevles.
That was the consequence largely of licensing laws.
So?
but no, modern cafe culture as we know it didn't appear until the early 90s -- actually ahead of most of the world.
Ok, your jingoism is starting to hurt you. Most of the world? Where? Chad? Burundi? Don't make me laugh Russell. You've only ever lived in London. For some reason, on his "Big OE", the Kiwi goes the two countries most culturally similar to their own: Aussie and the UK. So maybe our cafe cultural was ahead of the UK, the other part of the world with which you're familiar. I know you love Brand NZ more than anything but this is getting silly.
This is both untrue, and unamusing.
English is the most-heard language in every large city except Montreal.
I meet Canadians of every generation between 1 and about 10 every day. Including proud fourth generations.
Spoken like a true Albertan? Maritimer? Newfie? Not from the Centre of the Universe, that's obvious.
Except of course for that fact that Canada is much of a country at all anymore. it isn't much of anything really, it is more an historic accident that sort of exists because political inertia is easier than falling apart.
What kind of banality is that? You just don't want to accept that Canada's identity IS it's multiculturalism. I usually really agree with your comments, Tom. I didn't know you were a closet racist. Bummer, dude.
-
they would be on their own once the set foot in New Zealand. Weren’t most of them highly educated, well experienced and had their own financial resources? Why should the state offer anything to help in their settlement? This meshed well with local business and economic development which was not interested in ‘ethnic programmes’ except possibly as a way of helping impoverished Pacific communities.
Fantastic piece. Thanks so much.
Vancouver's experience is probably like Canada's on the whole. Trudeau brought in multiculturalism by federal directive in the 70s ("Although there are two founding peoples there is no founding culture..." and that mirrored Laurier before him...) Then in 1982, multiculturalism was enshrined in the Charter. Then in the mid-80s a Conservative PM enacted the "Multiculturalism Act".
Now in Canada's large cities it's somewhat amusing to hear people speaking English. Fourth generation Canadians are seen as an amusing relic. Do you eat roasts? Do your parents wear sweaters to dinner and talk about classical music, ha ha ha?
The reality is that in NZ, the hegemony of Anglo Saxon culture refuses to die. The Interfaith dialogue was a fantastic example of that. Also, we never had (much) immigration from Central, Eastern or Southern Europe. We still treat South Africans and Pomps as "one of us".
Most people that run this country (wealthy baby boomers) grew up not knowing anyone from different cultures and didn't travel much when they were young. There is still a serious fear of the unknown. Let's be honest, we NZers didn't travel at all until very recently. There were really no coffee shops or restaurants in this country until the 90s for chrissake. How can you expect the political class to suddenly embrace all these different people?
That MP from Rodney would have had to flee the country in Canada after making jokes about fruit pickers during an election. The current PM didn't even growl him let alone cut him loose. That would have been hanging offence #1 short of having kiddie porn or eating one's young.
The truth is that non-white and non-English speaking immigrants to this country feel no particular sentimental loyalty to NZ. Most of them I speak to, and I speak to many, want to move to Aussie/Canada/USA. On a cynical realpolitik level, they are a somewhat unclaimed cohort of voters.
The magic that Trudeau created was that almost all of the immigrant communities in Canada became loyal to the Liberals.
In reality we suffer from the lamest form of racism: we're kind of embarrassed by their accents and funny foods. At worst, we have Winston. At least Melissa Lee properly slammed Winston in her maiden speech.
It was on that basis that I felt Shearer's election was a failure. Helen got the nod and it was a big deal that it went to a woman. Then it reverted to a physically capable, heterosexual, white, educated and wealthy male. Yipdee fucking shit.
And we struggle to even begin the process of developing an active and inclusive multiculturalism.
Kia ora.
But before economics and politics let's remember what Jean Monnet eventually said "J'aurais du commencer avec la culture."
-
RIP Walter Cronkite.
Imagine today a television newsreader saying this?
-
This thread is probably long dead. And yet...
I had a thought. Why did the police go visit Mr Curry at his office and talk to him for thirty minutes and only to get Cook's address, which, as was discussed in the Authority, was something they might have been able to get quite easily by other means.
Then I had another thought. My view is that the media in this country are craven when it comes to criticising the police. In general, the cops get an easy ride. Greg O'Connor gets to blah blah blah about whatever he wants. No one asks too many questions. The police are also prolific advertisers here. Overseas, newspapers pay the bills by going after the police.
Stephen Cook might have been an exception.
See this.
There are many others.
Half an hour of my research has shown me that no other journalist in the country was more critical of the police than Stephen Cook -- and this seems to have been especially true around the time of the stolen medals and the Kahui investigations -- both having put egg on the face of the police.
I'm not saying that there is anything to this but I find it interesting.
-
I'm no expert on this, but isn't the central entitlement about common law rights not the Treaty?
I think that is spot on, Sasha. We'd be having all these debates with or without the treaty. It's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's the vibe.
Ngati Apa, and I haven't read it in a while, basically re-affirmed the common law doctrine of radical title -- in 1840 the Crown got title subject to pre-existing aboriginal titles as opposed to terra nulius in Aussie.
The case also said that the foreshore and seabed was land (as opposed to gas or water, I suppose) and said that Maori could go to the Maori Land Court to test their title to it because, like, that is what the bloody Maori Land Court is for.
This entire debate is about a piece of legislation that precluded an entire race from accessing the courts. It was an offensive piece of legislation on that basis.
-
Where on Earth was the sub?
Spending his or her redundancy payments or working split shifts at Pagefuckers.
George's copy goes in unedited I would imagine, possibly unread.
And didn't he retire?